Now He IS a Sore Loserman

I got your Joementum right here, Mr. Accessory to Mass Murder.

Yesterday’s primary defeat of DINO Joe Lieberman was great news for the voters of Connecticut, the United States and the Democratic Party, which has finally begun the process of being reclaimed by the ordinary hard-working Americans it abandoned beginning with the rise of proto-DLC centist guv Jimmy Carter and culminating with the pro-war votes of innumerable elected Democrats in recent years.

Anyone who doubts that Lieberman was a Democrat need only consider his decision to run as an independent despite his defeat. So desperate to maintain his position and serve the monied interests of the Bushite Republicans is he that he’s willing to split the Democratic vote and risk electing a Republican instead. His career may be in ruins–his reputation certainly is, for casting vote after GOP vote–but this tack may bring down the party system once and for all.

Funny, I don’t remember liberals weighing in on which candidates Republicans ought to elect in their primaries. Yet Republican-aligned pundits have oh so helpfully suggested that a move left by the party spells defeat in November. Somehow, I doubt that. The Democratic Party lost its soul a while back. Finding it can only help with the electorate.

As for Joe Lieberman, one hopes that he will use the spare time, not to further undermine the Democratic Party that foolishly supported him all these years, but to prepare for the trial for mass murder that will someday confront every politician who voted for two illegal wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, if there is a God.

Mail Bag

Paul writes about yesterday’s cartoon:

You really, really don’t get it. Take your number 2 [pencil], darken Olmert’s skin. Give him nappy hair and thick lips while you’re at it. Change antisemite to niggerlover. Is the strip still funny?
 
But the Germans, of all people, can better explain this to you. Go here: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,429982,00.html
 
I still think you’re saveable and (usually) love your work.

And it’s good to be loved. Seriously:

Antisemitism is real. To wit: Mel Gibson. (Sorry, but non-antisemites don’t spout antisemitic bullshit when they get drunk.)

The point of my cartoon is that, while some critics of Israel do so because they are antisemites, criticizing Israel does not inherently make one antisemitic. I have serious issues with Israeli foreign policy, yet I admire Israel and despise antisemitism. (Sort of how I hate American foreign policy, yet love America.)

In the analogy that you make, a cartoon called “The Anatomy of Racism” would only work if there were some black-dominated nation whose critics were routinely and automatically accused of racism merely because of that country’s demographics. No one has ever suggested, at least not seriously, that critics of [Zimbabwean President] Robert Mugabe are motivated solely or even partly by racism.

My interview with KFI Radio Los Angeles morning host Bill Handel, will take place:

10:30 am
Monday
in Southern California, listen at 640 AM
Online at kfi640.com (yes, it’s livestreamed)

I’ll be discussing my new book SILK ROAD TO RUIN, about Central Asia. If you thought Iraq was a son of a bitch, wait until the US invasion of Uzbekistan!

Factchecking Israeli Demographics

Today’s cartoon references the percentage of Israelis who are Jewish. Some correspondents, claiming that Jews account for more than 70 percent of Israelis, take issue with my claim that the split is roughly 50-50. For the record, I relied on this quote from a professor at the University of Haifa for this cartoon:

Today, there are 5 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews. The latter figure is composed of 4.5 million Arabs and the remainder non-Jewish immigrants, mainly from the former Soviet Union, and foreign workers,” he told the Jerusalem Post.

I have read similar statements elsewhere; thus my cartoon.

SILK ROAD TO RUIN Book Tour

Ernie asks:

Hi Ted. I pre-ordered your book and look forward to reading it. I assume you won’t be at the big Con in Chicago this weekend?  Any chance you will be coming through Chicago this fall  to sign our books? Thanks.

I have confirmed bookstore appearances in New York and am working on setting up dates on the West Coast at this time. There are, however, no current plans for any appearances in Chicago. If a store, college organization or other group would be interested in having me travel to Chicago (or anywhere else!) to speak about and/or sign copies of SILK ROAD TO RUIN, please contact me at chet@rall.com.

I’ll be discussing my new book Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East? Wednesday morning at 10:45 am local (West Coast) time on the Bill Handel Show on KFI Radio. You can listen online or at AM 640 in southern California.

It’s Here!

I feel like I’ve given birth.

Terry at NBM Publishing messengered over the first copy of SILK ROAD TO RUIN. With great trepidation, a flashback to the disappointment when St. Martin’s Press fucked up the printing of WAKING UP IN AMERICA, I opened the package and removed the book. Would the spot varnish on the blood splatters look OK? Would the matte jacket look good with the paper stock? Had the hardcover casing turned out OK? Were the signatures laid out properly–not always a given?

I needn’t have feared. SILK ROAD is, without a doubt, a fine-looking specimen. Over an inch thick, nice blacks, the graphic novellas look great, etc. Whew.

I think Terry, who says this is my best work yet, may be right.

Attendees to next week’s San Diego Comic Con will have the first shot in the nation of buying SILK ROAD TO RUIN. I’ll also be on hand to sign it. (And no, no, no–I’m not doing any panels or talks there. And yes, I would do one if invited. But I never have been and never will be, so please stop asking.)

Books will begin shipping to stores in August and should start appearing in two or three weeks. Now would be a good time to place your order with your local bookstore or online using the link above.

I think (crossing my fingers here…) that this is going to be one of my Big Deal kind of books.

Gates/Buffett Column Feedback

Some good responses have come in that I thought I’d share with y’all:

“Ken” (his name has been changed to protect his identity) starts out with Emilio Estevez’s classic dying quote from “Repo Man”:

I blame society.

No … really. Pointing out that it can’t possibly be ethical for one person to have accumulated 44-50 billion dollars is meaningless in a society where a struggling single mom thinks she is one TV Game Show or Lottery Ticket away from having millions. Their billions are justified by the people who want (but will probably never have) a touch of that kind of wealth.

We as a society, are very much about winning the game and winning as big as you can. America is about getting more, not just enough, and no where is that more reflected than in our version of Capitalism. To many people (including, perhaps, Gates and Buffett) the stack of billions is not merely wealth, but their life-time score in the game of Capitalism. And aside from the hypocrisy of Baseball, most Americans seem to be just as enthusiastic about those who win by playing by “gaming the system” as they are for those who play honestly.

But this, all of this, is academic.

What percentage of the population will actually listen to new information and possibly change their world view based on that
information? I can’t quote a study but I imagine among media consuming young adults and adults the percentage is less than 1%. All of the activist outreach, all of the propaganda, all of the well-reasoned editorials in the world amount to nothing more than SPAM — spewing out volumes in a desperate search for people who have the ability to change their minds.

But don’t stop — not for one instant — or your message will be swallowed up in the storm of ideas … lost “like tears, in rain.”

Looking back at what I have written, before sending it, I see that I have really said nothing new about America that Umberto Eco’s “Travels in Hyperreality” hasn’t already said and nothing about modern Capitalism that hasn’t been said by Jamie Uys’ excellent “The God’s Must be Crazy.”

It’s just more SPAM.

Thanks, etc.

On the other hand, Lloyd stands up for laissez faire:

Count me among those who regularly agree with much of what you say as well as being among those who considers himself quite left of center politically. But count me also as a nerd who feels an instant need to come to Mr. Gates’ defense, though I’m sure he can defend himself quite ably. As to Mr. Buffet, I don’t know the man and cannot even pretend to speak intelligently about him.

Bill Gates is a smart man. I’m sure we agree on that point. As he grew his company, unlike many leaders, he included him employees in his prosperity. His company was also at the forefront of providing employer benefits that we all wish Wal Mart would emulate. Though his company is huge, and the stock he has owned since the beginning is substantial, his annual compensation is under a million a year, rather small for such a man. The reason he’s so rich is our stock market which values Microsoft stock so much, that his share has ballooned to the many billions it is now worth.

You mention a price point of $200 in your article. I’m unsure of which program you refer to, but most people with Windows on their computer paid $100 or less for that fully legal copy of Windows. As to fairness, well, the technically adept can get Linux for free while the rest of us are going to pay someone, whether it’s Bill or Steve.

Bill Gates is not stealing by selling his product for a stated price, and his wealth was not stolen from anyone since the vast majority of it is paper wealth only. But when he converts that paper wealth into actual money just so he can solve the problems of the world (and every dollar spent by private citizens on the Pearl Harbor Memorial, and private money has been a part of its financing since the beginning, is one more dollar of our government’s money that will not be borrowed by an irresponsible Legislative and Executive branch).

Because of Ken Lay, many people had entire retirement accounts wiped out. Because of Bill Gates, many people will live enriched lives. We don’t need to fall over ourselves thanking Bill, but we shouldn’t be comparing him as less honorable than the likes of Kenny Boy.

People often only write to complain, and I’m guilty of that here, but keep up the good work. I never miss a column.

P.S. (and quite late): As an avid Arizona Cardinals fan and someone who had a Pat Tillman jersey when only locals knew his name, cut the guy a break. He learned that he had erred by joining in Bush’s jihad. He just didn’t get out before the bullets got him.

I’ve said on numerous occasions that, had I known what I know now about Pat Tillman, I wouldn’t have drawn that cartoon in 2004.

And finally, there’s this:

Bravo on a brilliant column.

I was wondering if anyone would come out and tell the truth about Buffet and Gates.

Lionizing two ruthless businessmen for charitable giving with money that was essentially stolen from many people over a very long time (legally or illegally stealing is still stealing) was too hard to stomach for me.

This money if distributed equitably and fairly as pay and compensation would have had a far greater effect on charitable giving than these two could possibly do now.

Gates is an anti-trust cheat who bundles software to torpedo competitors and somehow escaped the breakup of his company. Although Europe still has a lot to say about that.

Buffet is a holding company baron who can effectively rule over a vast range of companies through the power of the boards. Since he controls so many boards who knows what he was able to pull off. Collusion, antitrust, cut throat competition etc. I’m sure it is all legal or can’t be proved to be illegal.

The government today tolerates what wasn’t tolerated in Teddy Roosevelt’s time and certainly not tolerated after the great depression. Because of this lax enforcement we have a thousand Ken Lays out there that will never be brought to justice. People’s livelihoods, retirements, college for their kids and the dream of owning a home are rapidly disappearing as the Buffets and Gates take more of what is rightfully other people’s money.

And the most galling is their canonization in the news media for giving away what they can not possibly spend.

As a closing the worst isn’t even these two. Even they blanched at Bush’s economic policies.

Counting on Ignorance

Once again, a top Bush Administration official is counting on the average American’s ignorance of recent history to make an assertion that would be laughable were it not such a direct affront to the truth. While visiting a “secret” US military facility in Tajikistan, Donald Rumsfeld blamed the resurgence of Afghan opium production on the Taliban:

“”Anytime there is that much money floating around and you have people like the Taliban, it gives them an opportunity to fund their efforts in various ways,” said the Secretary of Defense.

Of course, the Taliban government ended opium cultivation in Afghanistan in 2000, at the request of the US and UN and at the cost of impoverishing countless Afghan farmers. As those who read my reports from the war zone in 2001 know, it was the return of the Northern Alliance government–which led to the current U.S.-backed Karzai puppet regime–that prompted the current spike in drug production and smuggling across Central Asia.

Told You So

Over and over.

Excerpts:

It’s not as if we don’t have a history. When the paras moved into Camp Price just outside Gereshk in May and their commander had his first meeting with local officials, it took the Afghans just 10 minutes to bring up the battle of Maiwand. One of the worst defeats ever suffered by the British Army in which more than 1,000 men were slaughtered by the side of the Helmand River, the battle may have happened in 1880 but Afghans in Helmand talk about it as if it were yesterday and all claim that their forefathers were there.

If any further reminder were needed that one gets involved in Afghanistan at one’s peril, the Kabul headquarters of the Nato-led peacekeeping force is on the site of the old British cantonment. Its entire strength fled from here in January 1842 after a tribal revolt against the British-imposed ruler.

Of the 16,000 soldiers, wives, children and camp followers who left, only one got away; the rest were massacred or taken prisoner by Ghilzai tribesmen. Only Dr William Brydon was deliberately left alive to tell the tale and warn people back home of the consequences of getting involved in Afghanistan.

In a country that has ended up as a graveyard for so many thousands of British soldiers, why don’t we learn from history?

This time the politicians tell us that we have gone to make peace, not war — to “secure the area so that development can take place and extend the reach of the Karzai government”. But we are woefully underequipped for either: already six British soldiers have lost their lives within 24 days, victims once more of the Ghilzai Pashtuns.

Last month saw 53 “TICs” — troops in contact, in other words under Taliban attack — and last week there were two nights during which all but one of the British bases and outposts in Helmand came under attack.

How did it all go so wrong? Why does a senior British military officer talk despairingly of “military and developmental anarchy”?

AFGHANISTAN was supposed to be the success story.